Afternoon summary
Keir Starmer has defended his decision to say that Labour will keep the two-child benefit cap because it needs to show its commitment to fiscal responsibility. Speaking in a Q&A with Tony Blair, Starmer suggested it was no good talking about being willing to take “tough decisions” in the abstract if he was not willing to take them in particular cases. Referring to the dispute, he said:
My first reaction is we keep saying collectively as a party that we have to make tough decisions. And in the abstract, everyone says: ‘That’s right Keir.’
But then we get into the tough decision; we’ve been in one of those for the last few days, and they say: ‘We don’t like that, can we just not make that one, I’m sure there is another tough decision somewhere else we can make.’ But we have to take the tough decisions.
Starmer was speaking after Jeremy Corbyn claimed Labour MPs were “seething with anger” over the decision. In comments to the shadow cabinet earlier, Starmer said working people would suffer if a Labour government lost control of the economy. (See 5.29pm.)
Updated
The Blair/Starmer Q&A was fascinating for anyone interested in Labour politics. They did not disagree on much, but to describe it as a love-in does not quite capture the uneasy hierarchy jostling that was going on. Blair is the most successful Labour election winner in the past half century, and he does not defer to others lightly. But, talking to Starmer, he was treating him with a level of respect he normally reserves for a US president. As Robert Shrimsley from the FT, and Tom McTague from the Atlantic suggest, it was quite a moment.
Maybe my imagination but I thought Tony Blair looked just a bit misty eyed as he effectively passed the baton to Keir Starmer at his Future of Britain conference. A clear anointing of Starmer as a worthy successor
— robert shrimsley (@robertshrimsley) July 18, 2023
I feel like I just witnessed some kind of peace agreement between Tony Blair and Labour: Starmer formally bringing Blair back into the fold; and Blair formally giving his blessing to Starmer’s Labour that they’re ready. A political laying of hands.
— Tom McTague (@TomMcTague) July 18, 2023
Updated
Patrick Maguire from the Times has been briefed on what Keir Starmer told the shadow cabinet about the two-child benefit cap row. Stressing the importance of fiscal discipline, Starmer said:
It doesn’t matter if it’s unfunded tax cuts or unfunded commitments – it’s working people who suffer.
(This probably functions better as a soundbite than as a statement of economic reality.)
Starmer also said he would “not let an incoming Labour government lose control of the economy because I know what it will do to working people”.
(That’s a more realistic economic proposition, although his critics would say reversing a benefit cut at a cost of £1.3bn isn’t the same as losing control of the economy.)
Here are Starmer’s comments to the shadow cabinet in full
— Patrick Maguire (@patrickkmaguire) July 18, 2023
He implied opponents of his stance on the two-child cap were taking the same approach to the economy as Liz Truss:
“It doesn’t matter if it’s unfounded tax cuts or unfounded commitments — it’s working people who suffer.” pic.twitter.com/DRlTymEQv5
Starmer says Labour will need to be 'even tougher, even more focused, even more disciplined' as election approaches
Blair says, as Labour leader, you are always “in receipt of an inexhaustible supply of advice on how to lose” (ie, bad advice).
And he says, that when he became leader, he was lucky enough to follow Neil Kinnock and John Smith. Starmer wasn’t, he said.
Starmer accepts he had to do what Kinnock, Smith and Blair did all in one go. It led to him acting “at speed”, he says.
And he says he felt Labour did not have the right to tell people how it would run the country until it had shown it had changed.
Starmer says he has done that. And he has shown what the government is doing wrong. Now is the time to set out what he would change.
He says people wanted him to do this in a different order. That would not have worked, he argues. He goes on:
If we hadn’t changed the Labour party, then they’d be looking at us and saying: ‘Nah, we’re not going to do that.’
He says in the next phase Labour will need to be “even tougher, even more focused, even more disciplined” as the election approaches.
Blair ends by saying:
If how far you’ve taken the Labour party in the last four years is any guide to how far you can take the country, we’ll be in the good hands.
Updated
Blair says that, in progressive politics, there is a tendency to judge effectiveness by how much money is being spent.
Starmer agrees. As head of the Crown Prosecution Service, he saw the importance of reform, as well as spending, he says.
As an example, he recalls going to Wales, where documents for court appearances were all transferred on paper, not electronically.
Updated
Blair asks about health. Starmer says, with AI, cancer diagnosis will improve significantly.
Blair made that point himself in his speech earlier. (See 4.10am.)
Starmer says at the moment “go to the GP or go to A&E” are broadly the only options available for people in health. He says services should be closer to people, so that people have more choices.
Starmer is now talking about energy policy.
He says he asked an energy boss how long it would take to build and set up a new windfarm. He was told 13 years, with five years wasted because of planning constraints, and more time wasted getting connected to the grid.
Starmer suggests a Labour government would change planning laws to speed this up drastically.
And he says this is why his missions are so important. They mean that, if he wins the election, he will have a mandate to implement all the reforms the missions require. That is because he will be able to say it is what people voted for.
Starmer suggests two-child benefit cap row is example of what taking 'tough choices' involves
Starmer says they are having a row about “tough choices” at the moment. That is because they need economic discipline.
He says people agree in abstract that the party has to take tough decisions. But, as soon as you take one, they ask for an exception, he says.
He does not mention directly the two-child benefit cap, but that he is referring to.
He says Liz Truss provided an example of what happens when a government embarks on irresponsible spending. He says he won’t let his government go anywhere near the equivalent of what Truss did.
Blair tells Starmer he has done an amazing job. He says there is a “pretty good prospect” for the next election.
He says he is a fan of Starmer’s missions, because they set a direction for the government. He says, if Starmer becomes PM next year, he will be the sixth PM in eight years.
Starmer agrees. He says at Davos international business figures were saying they would not invest in the UK because they did not have certainty.
Updated
Starmer and Blair are now engaged in conversation.
They start by joking about PMQs. How’s it going, Blair asks. Starmer says that he is out of practice, because Rishi Sunak has missed the last two.
Starmer says, unlike Blair, he believes that only progressives can answer the challenges of future
Starmer says he does disagree with Blair on one thing.
He says he does not accept the idea that the challenges facing the world are a matter beyond left and right.
Starmer says only progressives can face the challenges of the future. “On the right, all I see is retreat,” he says.
UPDATE: Starmer said:
Finally, one place where I do take issue with Tony – the idea that this is somehow beyond left and right.
For me, this is a progressive moment, because on the right, all I see is retreat, retreat from the world, retreat from the battle of ideas, retreat from the necessary fight against their dangerous fringe.
On the other, all around the world I see progressive parties asking the difficult questions, looking for new ways to express that traditional argument, going for growth.
That, in the end, is the only way to break Britain out of its current doom-loop and deliver our purpose.
Updated
Starmer says Labour loses when it forgets the importance of security and aspiration.
There are other directions a progressive party could take, he says. There is the “rabbit hole of narrow identity politics”, he says. And, after Brexit, some on the left wanted to give up on the concerns of working people.
UPDATE: Starmer said:
And for my Labour party, for me, after the collapse in Scotland in 2015, the loss of the red wall in 2019, and the division of the Brexit years, the project is to return Labour to the service of working people. To become, once again, the natural vehicle for their hopes and aspirations across all four nations on these islands.
It’s not the only path a progressive party could take, there are always different directions. The rabbit hole of narrow identity politics is not a new thing, but it’s always there.
You could even completely unmoor from the concerns of working people, that sounds ridiculous to me, but some people did seriously suggest it, after the Brexit referendum.
But no, I am completely convinced that reconnecting with working people is the right path. Not just because I feel it in my bones, although I do, but also because it forces us to confront the realities of the country and its challenges more starkly.
Updated
'Growth, growth, growth' - Starmer tells Blair's conference what UK needs most
Starmer’s speech is billed as quite a short one, and he is running through some stock themes.
He says he wants to shatter the class ceiling that holds people back in this country.
He says the country faces mulitple challenges. But he sums it up like this.
We need three things: growth, growth, growth.
It is a reference to Tony Blair’s famous quote about his three priorities being “education, education, education”, and he tells the audience they’ve heard something like this before.
UPDATE: Starmer said:
Make no mistake, it’s a new age of insecurity and we’re not even close to match fit.
So - to get back on our feet, join the race, win the race, and get our future back.
We need three things:
Growth.
Growth.
Growth.
You might have heard a refrain a bit like that before. But I’m serious, it’s the only answer that can restore long-term hope and opportunity.
Updated
Starmer thanks Blair for his support as he addresses conference run by former PM's thinktank
Keir Starmer is speaking now to the Tony Blair Institute conference.
He starts by thanking Blair for the invitation, and “for all the support that you have given me since I’ve been Labour leader”.
And he also praises the policy work done by the thinktank.
He says he likes the fact that the institute has “a fierce commitment to this country” and a firm belief life can be better.
(In normal circumstances, one party leader paying tribute to a predecessor would not be worthy of note, but Starmer’s predecessor as leader viewed Blair as a war criminal, and even in the Ed Miliband era Blair’s endorsement was seen as more of a liability than a blessing.)
Updated
SNP MP Philippa Whitford to stand down at next election
The SNP’s Dr Philippa Whitford has announced she is stepping down at the next general election, becoming the party’s eighth MP to do so, PA Media reports. PA says:
The Central Ayrshire MP, who has been at Westminster for eight years, has said she will not contest her seat.
It comes after seven other SNP MPs, including the party’s deputy Westminster leader Mhairi Black, made similar announcements.
Whitford is the group’s spokeswoman for Scotland and before entering Westminster she worked as a breast cancer surgeon.
There are currently 44 SNP MPs at Westminster, and Whitford’s announcement means that almost a fifth of the parliamentary party (18%) is standing down. This is an even higher proportion than in the Conservative party, where the 42 MPs who have said they are standing down comprise 12% of the parliamentary party.
In some cases motives might be similar, because both parties will struggle to hold seats at the next election. But English MPs tend to be people who have had a lifelong ambition to make it to Westminster, whereas SNP politicians are people who aspire to ensure that Scots never need to sit in the Commons ever again.
Updated
Blair says mastering technological advances, including AI, key challenge for progressive politics in 21st century
Tony Blair delivered his own speech to his thinktank’s conference this morning. He said the key task for progressive politics in the 21st century was mastering technological advances, such as artificial intelligence. He said:
This technology revolution isn’t an interesting sideshow on the margins of traditional politics.
It should change them as completely as it is changing the world.
Of course like every technology there are dangers … which are also huge.
But in political terms – small ‘p’ political terms – it goes to the same point.
Understanding, mastering and harnessing the 21st-century technology revolution is the 21st-century’s progressive political mission, in the same way that ultimately mastering the 19th-century Industrial Revolution became the mission first of the Liberal party in the 19th century and then the Labour party over 100 years ago.
Otherwise, for progressive politics the danger is in retreat to a version of old-fashioned state intervention which now manifests itself in anti-globalisation sentiment, forgetting the enormous benefits open trading markets have brought the world.
Or in new-fashioned identity politics, which risks mirroring the divisiveness of the far right, not defeating it.
As PA Media reports, Blair said neither government nor health services were making use of national data infrastructure while digital IDs, which he said were “preconditional for a completely digital state”, were not being created.
Giving examples of the potential change possible, he said “proper use of NHS data” could save £10bn a year in early targeting of illnesses and that real-time data could help reduce hospital admissions by 60%.
Updated
Keir Starmer will shortly be giving a speech at the Future of Britain conference organised by the Tony Blair Institute. He will then take part in a Q&A with Blair himself.
Ben Wallace, the defence secretary, was at the conference earlier. Interviewed by the broadcaster Jon Sopel, he said that his decision to leave the cabinet, and stand down from the Commons, was not a reaction to the fact that he did not get appointed as the next Nato secretary general.
He said he never set out to be the next Nato secretary general. Until earlier this year it was assumed that Mark Rutte, the Dutch prime minister, would get the job, he said. When Rutte ruled himself out, Wallace said at that point he became interested. But he said he thought he missed out because the Americans wanted a former head of government to fill the role.
Updated
Ben Wallace, the defence secretary, has now published the defence command paper. Announcing it in the Commons, he said there were no PR-driven “shiny” announcements in it. He said:
As Russia has so effectively proven, there is no point having parade ground armies, mass ranks of men and machines if they cannot be integrated as a single full spectrum force, sustain in the field under all demands of modern war fighting.
That takes professional forces, well-equipped and rapidly adaptable, supported by critical enablers and vast stockpiles of munitions.
And that is why, in this document, you won’t find shiny new announcement, comms-led policy driving unsustainable force designs.
Here is Dan Sabbagh’s story about what’s in it.
People who died with Covid were treated like “toxic waste”, bereaved families have told the UK Covid-19 public inquiry, as they expressed their determination to channel their “grief, frustration and heartbreak” into making the UK better prepared for future pandemics. Robert Booth has the story here.
Updated
Liz Truss's decision to sack head of Treasury backfired, cabinet secretary suggests
Simon Case, the cabinet secretary, has suggested that the summary dismissal of the Treasury’s top civil servant by the Liz Truss government backfired.
While saying he could not comment on individual circumstances, Case told the Lords constitution committee that he believed the decision to sack Tom Scholar, viewed at the time as an attempt by Truss and her chancellor, Kwasi Kwarteng, to impose their economic view on the Treasury, had ultimately ended up strengthening the position of an independent civil service.
Responding to a question from Labour’s Lord Falconer, Case said:
It’s very interesting case because, I think, probably your line of questioning and the general way it was received suggests that it potentially has strengthened the position – that it was seen as such an unusual and potentially unwise act.
[It] has cemented and rather brought together the coalition of people who thinks this sort of thing should not be done.
Case, who last week told another committee that Nadine Dorries had been reported to the chief whip for allegedly sending “forceful” emails about not being given a peerage, also said there was no suggestion Scholar had lost his job due to his performance.
Pressed on the dismissal, Case, who is the most senior civil servant in government, said officials would “give fierce and frank advice” in private, but could not block ministers’ decision. He added:
The person who really has to explain why they thought this was a good idea was the former chancellor, and perhaps you’ll have the chance to ask him that question.
Burnham urges Starmer to say axing two-child benefit cap would be 'at front of queue' when resources allow
Turning away from the Lords communications committee for a moment, Andy Burnham, the Labour mayor of Greater Manchester, has joined the debate about the two-child benefit cap, and what the party should do about it.
In an interview with Andrew Marr, for LBC’s Tonight with Andrew Marr at 6pm, Burnham said Keir Starmer should say that getting rid of the cap would be a priority when funding allowed.
Asked if Labour should commit to getting rid of the cap, he replied:
Yes, in an ideal world for sure …
Oppositions have to show what differences they would make … It would be, I think, to indicate and to develop the position further to say, as and when resources allow, this would be a priority. That would reassure people who want to see this issue addressed.
The last Labour government had a mission around reducing child poverty and that was one of the great achievements of the last Labour government.
I would encourage the shadow cabinet and Keir to keep this under review. As and when there is the headroom to do something, this clearly should be at the front of the queue.
Asked about the decision by Jamie Driscoll, the North of Tyne mayor, to resign from Labour, Burnham suggested it would have been better if Driscoll had stayed. Driscoll was “a good mayor to work with”, Burnham said.
He also said that Labour needed “an approach that moves away from factionalism” and that one of its strengths in 1997 was that it had “a broad approach that encouraged different voices”.
Updated
Davie is now talking about reasons why the BBC is distinctive.
First, he says, it is because of its commitment to impartiality. He says that prioritising that was not “the easiest decision” for him, but it was the right one.
Second, he says the BBC is committed to homegrown talent. He says it is spread across more postcodes than ever before. Most of its dramas, like Happy Valley, are rooted in place, he says.
And he says, in a world of algorithms choosing viewing choices, and echo chambers, the BBC has a personal relationship with viewers, he says. He says it can bring people together.
Updated
Tina Stowell says they are now turning to how the BBC is funded. She says she is glad to see that the government is now addressing this issue.
She is referring to today’s Times’ story saying the BBC is facing “a formal review into the future of its funding amid concerns in government that the licence fee is ‘unsustainable’”.
The Times report says:
Ministers are expected to formally announce a review of its funding model in the autumn, which will consider alternatives including subscription, a broadband levy, increased commercial activity and advertising.
The review will assess the advantages and disadvantages of each model and present advice to ministers in the autumn of next year. The BBC’s royal charter is up for renewal in 2027.
Q: Do high-profile presenters have something in their contract about not bringing the BBC into disrepute?
Yes, says Davie.
Q: How are the highest paid presenters held to account?
Davie says the industry should be concerned about the potential abuse of power by people in powerful positions.
The BBC has a “really clear code of conduct”, he says. And it is clear what its values are.
There is a process in place, he says. Normally you would go to your line manager with a concern. But sometimes that is not possible, and so there is a confidential, whistleblowing process in place, he says.
Davie says he cannot talk about individual cases. But he thinks the BBC has a “good process”.
Tina Stowell says she wants to go back to the original complaint. It was not a matter for Ofcom, she says.
Q: What is the situation with the original complainants?
Davie says he can only go so far, since he wants to protect privacy.
Since the weekend the story broke, the BBC has been in touch with them, he says.
Q: Is there anything you want to say about the difference between how the BBC deals with complaints like this, and editorial complaints?
Davie says the BBC often gets hundreds of thousands of complaints. Recently they have been about tennis, and scheduling.
And there are complaints like this one, he says. (Personal complaints.) There are lots, because the BBC is a big organisation. He says they get passed on to the corporate incidents team. They decide how to treat this.
Dame Elan Closs Stephens, the acting chair of the BBC, says the BBC board met on Saturday afternoon and Sunday afternoon when this story first broke.
She says there is going to be an investigation. It will involve a senior partner from Deloitte, Simon Cuerden. She says he has extensive experience in this field.
She goes on:
The terms of reference will be in front of the full board this coming Thursday, in two days time. They will be published in due course and the inquiry will get under way.
UPDATE: Stephens said:
We had a duty to act with some calm and rationality in the face of lack of rationality and lack of calm.
There were an awful lot of questions that could not be answered. There was a huge pressure to disclose the name of somebody to whom we had a duty of care, and duty of privacy, in addition to the family and young man that were concerned in this maelstrom.
So I was on the one hand seeking to establish the right of the board to oversee what was happening, but at the same time, I was trying my best to make for a calm and rational discussion of the issue before we all got carried away in what could have been very wrong directions.
Updated
Davie says he has also asked for a quick look at what has been “red flagged” during this.
That work is taking place immediately, he says.
He says there is also a review of any lessons to be learnt in terms of protocols and procedures. That will report in the autumn, he says.
BBC fact-finding inquiry into Huw Edwards affair could take months, Davie says
The Lords hearing with Tim Davie is starting.
Tina Stowell (Con), the chair, says this session was scheduled some time ago. But she says they will start by talking about recent events.
She says the committee does not want to pre-empt the BBC’s own investigation, or to intrude into personal matters.
Q: Can you give an update on the inquires underway?
Davie says this has been a difficult affair.
There is a fact-finding investigation underway. That is normal, he says. The BBC is looking at the facts. And it is “keen to receive any information”, he says.
He says this could take weeks, or a couple of months.
His main priority is “to be fair … and act judiciously”, he says.
He says world-class experts in this are working on it at the BBC.
UPDATE: Davie said:
This has been a difficult affair where we have tried to calmly and reasonably navigate some difficult concerns around the allegations themselves, duty of care, privacy and legitimate public interest.
We are in the process of looking at those facts, we are keen to receive any information, we want to understand anything that is out there.
It’s difficult to give a precise time on that because you have to go though that diligently, assess the information, there are duty of care concerns within that. Because I’m not control of all the variables that could take weeks or a couple of months or even longer, depending on what we get and managing the individuals concerned flawlessly.
My main priority is to be fair and get all the information into that process and act judiciously.
Updated
BBC director general Tim Davie to be questioned by peers about Huw Edwards controversy
Tim Davies, the BBC director general, is about to give evidence to the Lords communications committee.
The hearing will cover the Huw Edwards controversy. In a press notice last week, the committee said one of the issues covered would be:
In light of recent events, what concerns have been raised about the adequacy of the BBC’s governance arrangements and how it is addressing these.
But the committee said it would also cover other issues, including the BBC’s “independence from government”, proposals for a new funding model and “how the BBC’s commitment to impartiality needs to keep pace with changing societal expectations”.
There will be a live feed of the hearing at the top of the blog.
Labour MP Stella Creasy urges Starmer to get rid of two-child benefit cap on grounds this would save, not cost, money
The Labour MP Stella Creasy has urged Keir Starmer to commit to getting rid of the two-child benefit cap – on the grounds that this would help a future Labour government save money.
It is a relatively novel argument, and Creasy sounded like she was trying to be helpful to the Labour leadership when she made her case in an interview on the World at One. She was making a case that would synthesise the views of the Labour majority who probably view the policy as immoral, with the fiscal rectitude favoured by Starmer and Rachel Reeves, the shadow chancellor.
(Whether Starmer’s office consider the intervention helpful or not is another matter; they probably just wish the debate would go away.)
Creasy told the World at One:
Research that is coming out is showing us that, in of itself, [the two-child benefit cap] is potentially costing more than it is saving. It’s fairly common sense, isn’t it? If you make it harder to make ends meet, it doesn’t miraculously give you a job and give you the money to be able to even go to a job or go to a job interview …
So for a Labour government absolutely laser focused on the best use of public funds, is this the best use of public funds?
“Laser focused” is a phrase favoured by Reeves when she stressed her commitment to getting value for money for the taxpayer. Creasy was in effect using Reeves’ own rhetoric against her policy.
It has been widely reported that getting rid of the two-child benefit cap would cost £1.3bn. The Child Poverty Action Group (which wants the cap to go) cited this figure in a briefing paper in the spring. Creasy claimed that there was no evidence to suggest that the policy costs the taxpayer more than it saves, but she admitted that the research was “only in its infancy”.
As evidence, Creasy cited the Larger Families report published by academics yesterday analysing the impact of the overall benefits cap, and the two-child benefits cap. The report does indeed suggest these policies are counterproductive, but it does not argue definitely that the government would save money by abolishing them.
But it does argue that both policies make claimants less likely to work (geneating savings for the taxpayer), not more likely to work, as ministers thought when they introduced them. It says:
[The research involving interviews with claimants] shows the two-child limit can push people further away from the labour market for two main reasons. First, some participants found that the income shock of the two-child limit made it harder to afford the financial costs involved in entering paid work (eg childcare, interview clothes and transport to work). For some, it became harder to afford training or further education …
Second, a strong theme from our interviews was the negative impact of the two-child limit on parents’ mental health. This had implications for the participants’ ability to find or sustain employment …
Both policies have been routinely defended on the grounds that they encourage people to make ‘better’ choices about family size and to work more hours. We invite policymakers to engage with the evidence shared across this report, which demonstrates that such assumptions are incorrect. The two-child limit has not affected the number of children that families have, while both policies are pushing people further away from, rather than closer to, the paid labour market.
Updated
UNHCR condemns illegal migration bill, saying it will undermine laws protecting refugees globally
With the illegal migration bill now on the verge of becoming law, the United Nation’s refugee agency, UNHCR, has issued a fresh condemnation of the measure, which it says breaks international refugee law.
It urges the government to reverse the law, which it says would otherwise have a “profound impact” on the international legal framework in place protecting refugees
Here is an extract from the press statement released by the UNHCR.
The bill extinguishes access to asylum in the UK for anyone who arrives irregularly, having passed through a country – however briefly – where they did not face persecution. It bars them from presenting refugee protection or other human rights claims, no matter how compelling their circumstances. In addition, it requires their removal to another country, with no guarantee that they will necessarily be able to access protection there. It creates sweeping new detention powers, with limited judicial oversight.
“For decades, the UK has provided refuge to those in need, in line with its international obligations – a tradition of which it has been rightly proud. This new legislation significantly erodes the legal framework that has protected so many, exposing refugees to grave risks in breach of international law,” [Filippo Grandi, the UN high commissioner for refugees] said.
The bill denies access to protection in the UK for anyone falling within its scope – including unaccompanied and separated children – regardless of whether they are at risk of persecution, may have suffered human rights violations or whether they are survivors of human trafficking or modern-day slavery and may have other well-founded claims under international human rights and humanitarian law.
“Carrying out removals under these circumstances is contrary to prohibitions of refoulement [sending refugees back to countries where they are at risk of prosecution] and collective expulsions, rights to due process, to family and private life, and the principle of best interests of children concerned,” said [Volker Türk, the UN high commissioner for human rights].
Updated
No 10 refuses to deny publication of trans advice for schools held up by row about how strict it should be
The government is preparing advice for schools in England on how they should respond if pupils want to transition and it is expected to be published this week. But, according to a report by Jason Groves in the Daily Mail, it is being held up because of a row between Gillian Keegan, the education secretary, and Kemi Badenoch, the equalities minister.
Groves says:
The row focuses on the extent to which schools will be required to recognise pupils who want to ‘socially transition’ to a new gender without medical involvement.
Mrs Keegan said last month that children should be allowed to use the pronouns of their choice in school, provided they have parental consent. But the move is said to be opposed by equalities minister Kemi Badenoch, who has been lobbying Rishi Sunak to toughen up the government’s stance.
Ministers have agreed that trans pupils should not be allowed to use the toilets of their adopted gender or take part in single-sex sports. But division remains over so-called social transitioning.
One Whitehall source said the issue had now become mired in legal argument about its precise wording.
‘This guidance is now being pushed to the harder end of things and that means more lawyers are getting involved,’ the source said.
At the No 10 lobby briefing the PM’s spokesperson said that this was a “sensitive” area and work on the guidance was still continuing. He did not give details, but he did take issue with the Daily Mail, and he did not rule out publication of the guidance being delayed. He said it was “not unusual to take legal advice for government guidance”.
Updated
Home Office will not use illegal migration bill powers to detain refugees until Rwanda court case over, No 10 says
Downing Street has also confirmed that, when the illegal migration bill gets royal assent (see 9.33am), that will not mean that the Home Office will automatically start detaining asylum seekers prior to their removal from the UK.
The PM’s spokesperson said that, when the bill became law, the home secretary would have the power to detain asylum seekers in this way. But the legislation does not “require” her to do that.
The government does not want to start detaining asylum seekers until it also has the power to remove them to a third country. Rwanda is the only option at the moment, but the court of appeal recently ruled that removing asylum seekers to Rwanda was unlawful, and the issue now has to be resolved by the supreme court.
The spokesperson said the government wanted the act in place before the supreme court case concluded. But he said Suella Braverman, the home secretary, would not seek to detain people ahead of removal to a safe third country while the Rwanda policy was still being challenged in the courts.
First asylum seekers to be housed on Bibby Stockholm barge later this month, No 10 says
The first asylum seekers will be housed on the Bibby Stockholm barge at Portland in Dorset later this month, Downing Street said this morning.
Speaking at the daily lobby briefing, the PM’s spokesperson said:
It’s undergoing final inspections upon arrival. That’s the last part of the process ahead of the first group of asylum seekers moving into the vessel later this month.
Updated
Labour metro mayors threaten legal action over 'rushed' mass closure of rail ticket offices
Five Labour metro mayors are preparing to take legal action in a bid to stop the “rushed” planned mass closure of railway station ticket offices, PA Media reports. PA says:
The Greater Manchester mayor, Andy Burnham, who is one of those involved, declared “we will fight this all the way” as he launched a bid to prevent the action.
Train operators unveiled proposals earlier this month to close nearly all station ticket offices in England after the transport secretary, Mark Harper, urged them to cut costs.
They launched a three-week consultation on the measure.
The industry body the Rail Delivery Group (RDG) insisted ticket office staff would be moved on to station platforms and concourses to “modernise customer service”.
But Burnham said: “These closures will affect over 2,000 jobs. It’s just not the case that this is about redeploying staff. This will be a serious reduction in the level of support available to people when they are travelling. It will further erode what remains of trust in travelling on our trains and we think it is the wrong move at the wrong time.
“We’re very worried that these plans are being railroaded through. Today we are confirming that as five mayors representing millions of people across England, we are fighting back.”
The other mayors involved are: Tracy Brabin of West Yorkshire, Steve Rotheram of Liverpool city region, Oliver Coppard of South Yorkshire and Dr Nik Johnson of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough.
Burnham said the “rushed” consultation “does not provide a legal basis” for closing ticket offices, meaning it “should be declared null and void”.
He went on: “Section 29 of the Railways Act 2005 sets out a very clear and detailed process which must be followed if a train operating company proposes to close a station or any part of a station. That process has simply not been followed in this instance.
“For instance, it requires a 12-week consultation. Of course that is nothing like what is being currently undertaken by the train operating companies.”
The mayors intend to send a pre-action protocol letter to operators in their areas, setting out why they believe closing ticket offices in this way is unlawful.
A spokesperson for the RDG said: “All train operators are complying with the consultation process as set out in the ticketing and settlement agreement.
“They include proposals which, across the network as a whole, would see more staff on concourses and ticket halls to help passengers than there are today, helping with a whole range of needs, from buying tickets to journey planning and helping with accessibility needs.”
Updated
Mish Rahman says is it matter of 'serious concern' he was blocked from being Labour candidate over how he voted on NEC
Mish Rahman has posted the full text of his statement about the decision to block him from the contest to be Labour’s next candidate for Wolverhampton West on Twitter. (See 11.34am.)
He says it is a matter of “serious concern” that he was blocked because of how he voted on a matter before the national executive committee (NEC). And he says that, even though he has been blocked from being on a longlist himself, as an NEC member he is still choosing who gets included in other longlists. He says:
As a two-term, currently elected member of Labour’s NEC, I have chaired panels for longlisting in other parliamentary selections – I am therefore allowed to longlist candidates but not to be longlisted myself.
I was blocked for how I voted on the NEC in relation to the composition of party disciplinary structures, following the EHRC report. This was a position shared by an array of NEC members, including trade union representatives. Being blocked for casting a vote in a democratic process should be a serious concern for all of us in the Labour party.
I have not made the longlist in the Wolverhampton West parliamentary selection despite the backing of seven trade unions and affiliates.
— Mish Rahman (@mish_rahman) July 18, 2023
I have chaired longlisting panels for other Parliamentary selections but deemed not a 'high quality candidate' to be longlisted myself. pic.twitter.com/0PPufZQvkz
Momentum, the leftwing Labour group, has condemned the decision to exclude Rahman from the selection contest. A Momentum spokesperson said:
The vital signs of Labour party democracy are flashing red. It is simply indefensible that a member of Labour’s own executive can be blocked from standing for selection for a free vote on the NEC despite previously being entrusted with overseeing MP selections elsewhere.
Updated
There are two urgent questions in the Commons after 12.30pm, on the Post Office Horizon scandal and then on the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP). That means Ben Wallace, the defence secretary, won’t start his statement on the defence command paper until after 1.30pm. Johnny Mercer, the veterans minister, will then give a statement on the resettlement of Afghans.
Patrick Maguire from the Times says not one shadow minister spoke out against the party’s policy on the two-child benefit cap at shadow cabinet this morning. He says that Keir Starmer and Jonathan Ashworth defended the position, and that Pat McFadden and Lisa Nandy were supportive, but that discontent in the party is still “simmering”.
Labour welfare rebellion latest: understand not one shadow cabinet minister spoke out against party policy on the two-child limit at their meeting this morning.
— Patrick Maguire (@patrickkmaguire) July 18, 2023
Sir Keir Starmer and Jonathan Ashworth spoke in defence of the party's position.
— Patrick Maguire (@patrickkmaguire) July 18, 2023
Pat McFadden and Lisa Nandy both made supportive contributions before the discussion moved on.
Discontent still simmering but showdown some feared averted for now.
Labour MPs 'seething with anger' about Starmer's stance on two-child benefit cap, says Jeremy Corbyn
Labour MPs are “seething with anger” about Keir Starmer’s decision to say the party would not get rid of the two-child benefit cap, Jeremy Corbyn said this morning.
Corbyn, Starmer’s predecessor as leader, told LBC that he had spoken to “quite a lot of Labour MPs” about this issue. He went on:
They are seething with anger, particularly as commitments have been made regularly by the party that we would take children out of poverty. Even the Blair government, which Keir Starmer often quotes, did do a great deal to lift children out of poverty by not having a two-child policy …
Even in areas like mine, there are high levels of child poverty – probably 40% of the children in my constituency. All across the north-east, which Jamie [Driscoll] represents – a third of all children across the whole of the region are living in poverty. That has got to go and got to change.
And it’s the Labour party that ought to be offering that pathway to change and it’s not doing it at the moment.
Corbyn, who has been suspended from the parliamentary Labour party over his response to the Equality and Human Rights Commission into antisemitism in the party when he was leader, has been banned from standing as a candidate again for the party at the next election.
In the interview he said he had not ruled out standing as an independent candidate in the next London mayoral election, but he did not elaborate, saying he wanted the interview to focus on child poverty.
Leftwing NEC member blocked from standing in contest to be Labour MP
Keir Starmer faces fresh protests over a parliamentary selection after a member of Labour’s governing body was blocked from standing in Wolverhampton.
Mish Rahman, a notable Muslim voice within the party and graduate of the inaugural Bernie Grant leadership programme, has been blocked from the longlist for the new Wolverhampton West seat.
Rahman, one of the few leftwingers left on the national executive committee, had won the backing of seven trade unions and affiliated societies, which would normally have seen him automatically longlisted. But officials said he was being blocked because of his response to the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s report into Labour and antisemitism.
After he was blocked last week, Rahman used the party’s new selections appeal process, but his appeal was not upheld.
The appeal panel accepted that Rahman was not opposed to the EHRC report itself. But Rahman did oppose some party rule changes that were proposed, and discussed at the NEC, as a consequence of the report, and the appeal panel concluded this meant his candidature posed “a risk to the party’s electoral chances”.
Rahman is now the third graduate of the Bernie Grant leadership programme - aimed at empowering BAME Labour members to run for office – to be blocked from standing.
Reflecting on his failed bid to stand as an MP, Rahman said:
This is not a shock – it is what I and my team expected.
None of my fellow Bernie Grant leadership programme alumni have been selected.
We were told the party would support us towards leadership positions as black and ethnic minority activists – yet after this longlisting process, nothing has changed.
Updated
Rishi Sunak is considering holding a reshuffle later this week, Harry Cole reports in the Sun. Cole says the idea is being considered in No 10 amid fears the Tories will lose all three byelections on Thursday. He says:
No 10 could bring forward a reshuffle pencilled in for September to avoid a summer of speculation.
One minister told The Sun last night that “there’s logic to biting the bullet and going now” but other MPs worry the move would look like panic following an expected ballot box drubbing.
This may explain why Ben Wallace, the defence secretary, chose to film the press pack as he arrived in Downing Street this morning for cabinet. He has said he expects to leave government at the reshuffle and, if it is brought forward, today would be his last cabinet meeting.
More than 28,000 convicted of Covid rule breaches in England and Wales
More than 28,000 people in England and Wales have been convicted of breaches of Covid-19 regulations, despite the government’s insistence that it never intended to criminalise people for minor infractions during the pandemic, Maeve McClenaghan reports.
SNP accuses Labour of trying to face both ways on getting rid of two-child benefit cap
The SNP has accused the Scottish Labour party of trying to face both ways at the same time on the two-child benefit cap.
Yesterday Anas Sarwar, the Scottish Labour leader, said that he was opposed to the policy, and wanted to see the cap removed as quickly as possible, but that he acceped that Keir Starmer could not afford to do everything he wanted to immediately. Lucy Powell, the shadow culture secretary, made a similar argument this morning (see 10.21am), insisting the two positions were not inconsistent.
But Stephen Flynn, the SNP’s leader at Westminster, told the BBC’s Good Morning Scotland:
Anas Sarwar appears to be rubbing some Brasso on his neck this morning, because he is trying to con the people of Scotland into believing he is against the policy when just yesterday on the television he was saying he backs Keir Starmer’s position.
The reality is that London Labour have given a diktat to the Scottish Labour leader that he needs to support their ridiculous and heinous position in relation to this policy and Anas Sarwar has followed suit.
Asked if he was saying that Sarwar was not being sincere when he said he opposed the cap, Flynn said there was a “big difference” between campaigning against something and getting rid of it while in power.
Tories 'could lose all three' byelections this week, says minister
One of the curiosities of political journalism is that, when a politician says something blindingly obvious, it can sometimes count as news. Andrew Bowie, an energy minister, was in that category this morning when he was asked on Times Radio about the three byelection on Thursday, where the Conservative party is defending majorities of 20,137 (Selby and Ainsty), 19,213 (Somerton and Frome) and 7,210 (Uxbridge and South Ruislip).
“Of course it’s possible we could lose all three,” Bowie said.
But he went on:
But it’s also possible that we might win all three. I’m an optimist, I’m a Scottish Conservative and Scotland football fan – I have to be an optimist.
At Westminster the general assumption is that the Conservatives will lose all three seats – and that the chances of them winning all three are about as slim as the chances of Scotland winning the next World Cup.
Shadow culture secretary Lucy Powell plays down claims Labour split over two-child benefit cap
Lucy Powell, the shadow culture secretary, has played down claims that Labour is split over whether or not to reverse the two-child benefit cap.
In an interview with Sky News this morning, she claimed that there was no contradiction between viewing the policy as a bad one, and accepting it would have to stay until money could be found to reverse it.
She even defended the position by saying “there is no money left” – a line used in a joke note left by a Labour Treasury minister for his successor in 2010 which has been used endlessly by the Tories ever since as supposed proof of Labour’s economic irresponsibility.
Keir Starmer triggered a row on this issue on Sunday when he suggested the party was committed to keeping the two-child benefit cap – a policy which has been widely criticised for forcing families into poverty, while failing to have the behavioural impact ministers expected when it was introduced.
Starmer’s comments caused alarm within his party because he went further than other shadow ministers, like Rachel Reeves, who have left open the possibility that a Labour government might abolish the cap.
Explaining Labour’s position, Powell told Sky News:
We’ve opposed this policy, this is not a good policy. We’ve opposed it for many years through parliament, but we’re now in a very different economic situation.
As a famous phrase would go, there is no money left, the government has absolutely tanked the economy.
I don’t know it is dividing the shadow cabinet.
When it was put to her that Jonathan Ashworth, the shadow work and pensions secretary, has described the cap as “heinous”, she replied:
Both can be true at the same time, that things can be a bad policy, they can be bad politics, but the economic reality is what we’re now faced with.
There are lots of bad policies … we’re not implementing them, it’s about not reversing [them].
Here are more pictures of the Bibby Stockholm barge, which has been refitted to house 500 asylum seekers, arriving in Portland this morning. (See 9.44am.)
Photograph: Ben Birchall/PA
Updated
Asylum barge docks as Lords passes ‘shameful’ UK illegal migration bill
A barge that will be used to house 500 asylum seekers has belatedly arrived at Portland, Dorset, after voting in the House of Lords paved the way for the government’s illegal migration bill to become law, Ben Quinn reports.
Met chief says he’s ‘frustrated’ ministers haven’t changed rules to make it easier for rogue officers to be sacked
Good morning. Shortly after midnight the government won the last of five votes in the House of Lords on the illegal migration bill, meaning the amendments to the bill passed by peers last week have been reversed, the bill is now broadly as the government wants it (it accepted some concessions in the early phase of ‘ping pong’) and it is now due to get royal assent, possibly very soon. The full story is here.
Officially, the Lords did not back down. There were five divisions last night, and the government won all of them.
But at least one vote was pulled, after Justin Welby, the archbishop of Canterbury, decided not to put his amendment, saying the government should produce an international strategy for tackling migration, to a vote.
And some of the peers who voted against the government on this bill in earlier divisions were not in the voting lobbies last night. In votes on this bill earlier this month there were up to 235 peers voting against the government. Last night the anti-goverment vote was never higher than 200, and the Tories won with a higher-than-usual turnout of Tory peers although their majority was only seven on one vote. The opposition went down fighting, but the numbers imply they weren’t trying as hard as in the past – which is normal in a chamber where it is accepted that ultimately the elected house has to have its way.
All this is very good news for the Home Office. But there was less good news for them on the Today programme this morning when Sir Mark Rowley, the commissioner of the Metropolitan police, gave them a kicking over their failure to change rules that make it very hard for him to sack rogue officers.
Rowley has been complaining about this ever since his appointment. Here is a story from November last year, and in January he went futher, saying the regulations were “crazy”. Ministers said they would do something about this. But still nothing has happened, and Rowley said he was “frustrated” about the lack of action. He said:
The government announced a review that was, I think, due to report in May to look at police regulations and making the sort of changes I’d asked for. We haven’t yet heard the results of that review, and I’m frustrated. I need those changes in regulations to help me get on with them because some of the processes are too long, too bureaucratic.
And some of the decisions are made outside the Met. So people we’ve decided shouldn’t be police officers – an independent lawyer says, ‘Well, bad luck, you’ve got to keep them.’
That can’t be right. No other employer that has to deal with that. If I’m trying to get the minority out the organisation, whilst helping the majority of my people succeed, it’s not helpful to have useless, slow bureaucratic processes.
Asked why the government was taking so long to respond, Rowley replied:
I don’t know. There are legal technicalities and I’m sure there’s lots of reasons for them to work through. But I’m in a man in a hurry. We’re an organisation in a hurry to build the trust of Londoners and I’d like that support as quickly as possible.
Rowley also claimed that leaders in other organisations did not face the same constraints.
Why are we pretty much the only organisation where the leaders aren’t able to decide whether people stay in the organisation or no ….
You’re robustly challenging me on the culture of the Met and our ability to build trust in communities. It seems a little perverse, doesn’t it, that I don’t get to decide who works here. That’s a bit weird, and I don’t think anybody else works in an organisation where that’s the case.
Rowley was being interviewed because today the Met is announcing its New Met for London plan. Vikram Dodd has more on that here.
Here is the agenda for the day.
Morning: Rishi Sunak chairs cabinet.
11am: Grant Shapps, the energy secretary, gives a speech at the launch of Great British Nuclear.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.
12.30pm: Ben Wallace, the defence secretary, gives a statement to MPs about his defence command paper.
2.30pm: Tim Davie, the BBC director general, gives evidence to the Lords communications committee.
4.15pm: Keir Starmer gives a speech at the Future of Britain conference organised by the Tony Blair Institute. Afterwards he will take part in a Q&A with Blair himself.
If you want to contact me, do try the “send us a message” feature. You’ll see it just below the byline – on the left of the screen, if you are reading on a PC or a laptop. This is for people who want to message me directly. I find it very useful when people message to point out errors (even typos – no mistake is too small to correct). Often I find your questions very interesting too. I can’t promise to reply to them all, but I will try to reply to as many as I can, either in the comments below the line, privately (if you leave an email address and that seems more appropriate), or in the main blog, if I think it is a topic of wide interest.
Updated
